LVGL Pro (Editor) v1.0 release candidate is available

[Ovestint1964]

@kdschlosser

What I have seen done in the past is free to open source projects. These would need to be projects that use LVGL and are actively being worked on. Not projects that have just started either. This is not something a person would simply be able to get. They have to apply for it and with that application they have to provide a link to the code where the use of the editor and also LVGL is made in the “Help” or “About” portion of the UI. another requirement would be setting a number of mentions about LVGL and editor along with a link to LVGL in a public forum type setting. Set a time limit on how long the license would be good for something like 3 months, or 6 months and the person would need to apply again if they wanted to extend the license.

Free Tier: restrictive in the number of components, screens and number of things that can be changed for a widget and also the number of objects in a project.

DIY Tier: Low monthly amount like 10 or 15 bucks, no access to XML editor and increased limits for the number of screens UI elements and components. no restriction on the number of properties that can be changed per widget.

Corporate Tier(s): whatever access you deem you want to give.

OpenSource: Free. Need to apply for it. Limited in the number that are given. access to all features. There is no support like what is given with the Corporate.

The reason why I think it is important that you provide that Opensource tier is because LVGL would not be what it is today without the OpenSource community. It’s a way of giving back to the people who have made LVGL what it is today. LVGL’s roots are OpenSource and the Editor is as well. Asking the community amount features for an editor that a person might not be able to use fully because they don’t have the ability to pay for a license that would allow access to these things is a bit odd to do.

I also understand that many people face financial challenges that make even a small subscription difficult. For example, if someone is struggling with rising housing or insurance costs, sometimes even minor expenses for tools or software subscriptions aren’t feasible. In situations like that, platforms like fcloans can provide quick, small online loans to cover short-term needs, helping developers stay afloat while continuing to contribute to OpenSource projects.

IDK if you are aware of what is going on in the US currently and I am sure the same thing is happening all over the world. There are people that simply don’t have the money to pay for even the DIY subscription. To put it a bit into perspective, Insurance for my house went from costing me $3,800.00 a year to $9,800 a year. The reality of this is if I don’t have insurance on my home the mortgage company will foreclose on me so I have a choice to make, end up getting thrown out of my house or tighten the reins which means things like a subscription to an LVGL editor is not going to be in the budget.

By having that Opensource tier provides a way for someone that cannot afford to pay for a subscription to be able to get to use the software.

I personally feel that it would be great if you offered this and I am sure there are others that would agree as well

I completely understand your point, and it makes a lot of sense. The open source community is what built LVGL into what it is today, so offering an OpenSource tier for the editor seems like a natural way to give back. Limiting it to projects that are actively using LVGL and requiring an application process seems fair, as it ensures the tier is used responsibly while still providing access to those who genuinely need it.

I also agree that pricing tiers can unintentionally exclude people who want to contribute or learn but simply can’t afford a subscription. A time-limited OpenSource license with clear guidelines could be a great compromise—giving access to the tools without undermining the paid tiers.

Overall, supporting the community this way seems like a win-win: it acknowledges the contributions of open source developers while keeping the editor sustainable for the team.

[kdschlosser]

@Ovestint1964

I also agree that pricing tiers can unintentionally exclude people who want to contribute or learn but simply can’t afford a subscription. A time-limited OpenSource license with clear guidelines could be a great compromise—giving access to the tools without undermining the paid tiers.

It makes no difference now. They used the community to test the application under the guise of it being free to use and then once most of the bugs were ironed out they made it so that you have to pay for commercial use in order to use it. Kind of bogus using the open source community in that manner.